Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Babaei v. United States Department of State

District of ColumbiaTimothy J. KellyDecided March 19, 2024No. 1:23-cv-01244

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,914 written decisions from 2,661 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 1:24 a.m. CT; the Passim connector counts the live collection, which can differ by the day's additions and retirements (which total to quote). Coverage: of the 1,606 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for mandamus and agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,371 (85%), measured November 3, 2026. Some of what that search finds are not mandamus decisions. Tell us about a decision we're missing.

These are counts of past written decisions and dockets, not predictions of how any case will be decided. A distribution appears only when at least 5 decisions (or 5 dockets) are behind it; smaller groups are listed, not summarized. How it's counted.

What the decision decided

Each value cites the passage it was read from. Values read by a model were checked against that passage; values read by rule come from fixed text patterns. Read the decision before relying on either.

Agency Department of State Read by a model
Both types of visas are issued by Department of State consular posts worldwide and require applicants to apply and submit to an interview to assess their eligibility.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
Plaintiffs are five Iranian citizens residing in that country whose nonimmigrant visa applications have been pending for about a year and a half.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
They ask that Defendants “perform their duty to render a decision on Plaintiffs’ J-1 and F-1 visa applications without further delay,” and that they be awarded attorney’s fees and costs.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For all the above reasons, the Court will grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
A few months later, Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
For all the above reasons, the Court will grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Thus, the Court will grant Defendants’ motion and dismiss the case.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Thus, the Court will grant Defendants’ motion and dismiss the case.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For these reasons, Plaintiffs have not stated a claim that the delay in processing their visa applications is unreasonable. Thus, their claims against the remaining defendants, and the case, will be dismissed as well.
Months pending 10.2 months from the application to the suit; 20.6 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
between July 8, 2022 and October 11, 2022.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the government
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the applicant
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the applicant
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
The first two TRAC factors—often considered “the most important”—favor Defendants.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
If that were the case, there would be “no need to compel” an adjudication, and “[o]therwise, expediting review would merely redirect resources from other cases.”
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability rejected; Duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal found Read by a model
Because the government has not made a final decision, the non-reviewability doctrine does not apply.
Nationality Iran Read by a model
Plaintiffs are five Iranian citizens residing in that country

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:23-cv-01244
Filed
May 3, 2023
Ended
March 19, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
321 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
order 2024-03-19 for the defendants, ground not stated; idb disp 14 (dismissed: other)

A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why. Other suits in this court.

Supreme Court and D.C. Circuit authority

District decisions bind no one. On the questions this decision raises, the Supreme Court decisions and the circuit's published decisions listed here bind this court; a circuit disposition marked nonprecedential was not published as precedent and is persuasive only. ImmCite status as read November 3, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.